Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “feature data four-dimensional sensor” should be “feature data four-dimensional tensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-14 are directed to a method of predicting blood pressure using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-14 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea that either (1) involves mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and/or (2) involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: If claim 1 recites any limitations beyond the abstract idea, they are either software or computer components. Such components do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception since they merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: If claim 1 recites any limitations beyond the abstract idea, they are either software or computer components. Such components do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself since they are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 and, at best merely further include software or computer components.
Examiner’s Note
In regards to claim 1, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination a method comprising:
generating an input data four-dimensional tensor from a standard PPG data sequence;
generating a feature data four-dimensional tensor by performing a two-dimensional matrix construction of fully connected layer input data according to the input data four- dimensional tensor using the corresponding CNN model;
performing two-dimensional matrix construction of fully connected layer input data according to the feature data four-dimensional sensor to generate an input data two-dimensional matrix, and
performing a feature data regression calculation on the input data two-dimensional matrix by way of the fully connected layer of the corresponding CNN model to generate a blood pressure regression data two-dimensional matrix:
acquiring a preset prediction mode identifier, wherein the prediction mode identifier is a mean prediction identifier or a dynamic prediction identifier,
generating a mean blood pressure prediction data pair when the prediction mode identifier is the mean prediction identifier by performing a mean blood pressure calculation on the two- dimensional matrix of blood pressure regression data to generate the mean blood pressure prediction data pair, wherein the mean blood pressure prediction data pair comprises mean systolic pressure prediction data and mean diastolic pressure prediction data; or
generating a one-dimensional data sequence of dynamic blood pressure prediction when the prediction mode identifier is the dynamic prediction identifier by performing dynamic blood pressure data extraction on the two-dimensional matrix of blood pressure regression data to generate the one-dimensional data sequence of dynamic blood pressure prediction.
in combination with the other claimed steps.
Claims 1-14 contain no prior art rejections, however they are not in condition for allowance due to their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14 of remarks, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15 of remarks, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The referenced paragraphs of the specification fail to provide proof of the improved accuracy of the associated PPG equipment; merely stating the method improves accuracy is not enough to overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-22 of remarks, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights